Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

Legal Services by Lawyers Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Acts Due to Their Duty-Bound Nature” – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that legal services provided by lawyers are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its 2019 iteration. This decision emphasizes the unique, duty-bound nature of the legal profession which is integral to the administration of justice.

The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the services rendered by lawyers could be classified under the ‘service’ category as defined by the Consumer Protection Acts of 1986 and 2019, thereby subjecting lawyers to the provisions of these acts concerning ‘deficiency in service’. The apex court, presided over by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, has categorically ruled out such an inclusion.

The matter arose from several appeals led by the Bar of Indian Lawyers against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) earlier decision, which had held that complaints of deficiency in service against advocates could be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act.

Nature of Legal Services: The court highlighted that legal services are not merely commercial but are crucial to the justice delivery system, involving duties to the court, the client, and the broader judicial framework.

Legislative Intent and Interpretation: Delving deep into the legislative history and intent behind the Consumer Protection Acts, the court observed that the primary objective was to shield consumers from unfair trade practices in commercial scenarios, not professional services.

Comparative Jurisprudence: The judgment also touched upon international practices in countries like Malaysia, the European Union, Canada, the USA, and Australia, noting a common approach to exempt professional services, including legal, from the ambit of consumer protection laws.

Legal Profession’s Distinctiveness: It was further emphasized that the legal profession, regulated under the Advocates Act, 1961, stands unique among other professions due to its integral role in upholding justice and democracy.

Decision: Concluding its extensive analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the NCDRC. It was held that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, categorizing legal services under ‘contract of personal service’ which are excluded from the act.

Date of Decision: 14th May 2024.

Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.

Latest Legal News